Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Yet another middle ground that seems to elude all sides in this debate... why don't us Rs start demanding better policing of doctors? I don't have a problem with damage caps (and, in fact, I'm pretty much in favor of them across the board), but what's the point of any of this if we can't get the medical regulators (at the state level?) to start pulling licenses and taking names for the ones who are charged with more than a simple mistake?

If there's a problem, it's that med mal claims don't do a good job of compensating the right people. Caps are a bad idea, IMHO -- when you hear about the injuries people suffer, no one in the right mind would accept even the uncapped damages to incur those injuries. But if the system does not whack the right defendants, then it's not doing much to create the right incentives.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Why does this Koran-pissing story have such legs?

Am I the only one having problems generating a whit of sympathy for a group of people who (or at least a very high percentage of whom) come from a culture that celebrates burning the american flag?

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why does this Koran-pissing story have such legs?

Am I the only one having problems generating a whit of sympathy for a group of people who (or at least a very high percentage of whom) come from a culture that celebrates burning the american flag?

We should have avoided the whole mess by not giving them the fucking books in the first place.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You and I have talked about this. As I said before, the M.O. of this Administration, and this Congress, are to draft bills like that one to try to divide moderate Democrats from the business community. They don't want a bipartisan approach. They are trying to craft things so that reasonable Dems won't be able to sign on. That means "free trade" agreements designed to undermine environmental and labor protections, and so on.

By definition free trade acts undermine "labour protections". The reason why the Democrats are stopping it is they don't want to give Bush a win going into the congressional elections.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop No, but neither does that prove that there is much a problem, nor that it is one of the free market's biggest problems. Doctors commit malpractice sometimes. They cannot police themselves. The legal system has to do it. If you tell me that the legal system doesn't do a particularly good job of that, I might agree, but the reforms proposed -- esp. limiting pain and suffering awards -- don't address the problem. Trial lawyers are filling a need.

For the California Chamber of commerce the biggest complaint coming from their members is liability issues. Are all the members just stupid? Don't understand how to run their businesses? You can quote me all the stats you want, but the bottom line is that small business owners are in the best position to judge what is threatening their businesses. I just can't fathom that anyone would disagree with that.



[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop They started with a massive giveaway to the credit-card industry
Both businesses and unions support things that narrowly benefit themselves at the expense of the public good. We have all sorts of protections for various industries that your free-trade pals won't touch. Unions are no more prone to acting out of self-interest than businesses are.[QUOTE]

Small business do not have special interest. High tariffs on cream do not help the ice cream business. High tariffs on Steel do not benefit the car industry. Collectively, all the small businesses have one special interest in common. They want the US Business environment to be business friendly. When small business succeeds all of America succeeds. Most of the Job growth comes from small businesses. So what is in the interest of Small Businesses is in the interests of all Americans. The Unions only care about the jobs held by their members. Keeping those jobs at all costs is not always in the best interset of all Americans, let alone consumers. Unions do not want a flexible, dynamic economy. They just want job secuirty which is the antithesis of that. The US Chamber of Commerce understands better than anyone what we need to do to help small businesses. And they almost always support Republicans.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop They do understand that, but want the safety of Social Security, and to invest in the market on top of that.



The only way to pretend that that's true is to really manipulate the figures and ignore what's actually happening in Chile.


People would be able to count on Social Security if it was invested properly. And how does Bush's plan only benefit the fat cats? You are the one reading talking points now.

So in your view, we should be overthrowing the elected government of Venezuela right now?

Absolutely. He is turning that country into a Socialist dictatorship. And socialist dictatorships can last a very long time - see Cuba and Burma.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop As history has proven, you are simply wrong here. So wrong that it's hard to know where to begin. ?

Where was I wrong?
1) Clinton was not against the Republican Spending cuts
2) Spending cuts do not help balance the budget.
3) Clinton did not criticise Dole and the Republicans for trying to "cut" Medicaid.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop No, we got to pensions because you were saying that trial lawyers and unions are the biggest threats to the free market around, and I listed a bunch of things that I thought posed much greater economic risks, including pension regulation.?

Economic risks is a different subject than free trade and growth. Those things you are talking about may hurt certain people and cause economic pain to certain groups but not the country as a whole. I am for growth. There is no questions that the entire legal system is a drain on growth. As much as you would like to believe they do, lawyers do not ad to the GNP. The more business litigation there is, the worse it is for business.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I don't want get fringey going again (no mas, fringey, you win), so I will simply repeat my understanding that federal regulators have permitted companies to get away with underfunding their pensions, which will leave lots of workers (and the federal government) holding the bag. To the extent that the federal government is letting companies walk away from their obligations to these workers, there's a real problem..?



First of all, I'm not interested in defending California's workers comp system. I hear stories, too

That said, if you want to prove that something like workers comp is a problem for the economy, you're going to have to come up with something more than "they say it's a problem." Where there's smoke, sometimes there's a smoke machine.

Workers Compensation was the number one issue for the California Chamber of Commerce when they helped Arnold get elected. I know this because half of the board of the Chamber also sits on my board. I was also there when the Chamber listed their complaints to then candidate Arnold. On most of the bills that go through the legislature the Chamber of Commerce is on one side and the Unions are on the other. The same is true of the trial lawyers. So somebody is taking the side against growth, a healthy business environment and free trade. They both can't be on the side of free trade, growth and a healthy business environment because they are almost always on different sides. Call me crazy, but when it comes to free trade, growth and a healthy business envornment I think such issues are better in the hands of the Chamber than the Unions and Trial lawyers. Do you disagree with that?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't want get fringey going again (no mas, fringey, you win), so I will simply repeat my understanding that federal regulators have permitted companies to get away with underfunding their pensions, which will leave lots of workers (and the federal government) holding the bag. To the extent that the federal government is letting companies walk away from their obligations to these workers, there's a real problem.

Since the "you win" was clearly bs just intended to make me shut up (nice, Ty), I don't feel bad continuing. Thanks for being so unbelievably and insultingly transparent, Ty!!!! You are a sweetie. Kiss kiss.

In general, no, you can't get away with underfunding. But what are they going to do? Shut down the entire company? I am sure we are talking about United, here. Christ.

BTW, if you didn't notice, I'm kind of annoyed by your patronizing crap. It could be the wine talking.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
By definition free trade acts undermine "labour protections". The reason why the Democrats are stopping it is they don't want to give Bush a win going into the congressional elections.

Only if you think of tariffs as labor protections, and I don't. You mentioned Rep. What's Her Name from CoCo County. She would vote for the right kind of free trade pact. Rep. DeLay doesn't want her getting business support. Connect the dots.

For the California Chamber of commerce the biggest complaint coming from their members is liability issues. Are all the members just stupid? Don't understand how to run their businesses? You can quote me all the stats you want, but the bottom line is that small business owners are in the best position to judge what is threatening their businesses. I just can't fathom that anyone would disagree with that.

Burger, would you explain Brunswick's holding about the difference between hurting competition and hurting competitors?

Absolutely. He is turning that country into a Socialist dictatorship. And socialist dictatorships can last a very long time - see Cuba and Burma.

And the people there voted for him. What you are suggesting has no legitimacy at all.

Where was I wrong?
1) Clinton was not against the Republican Spending cuts
2) Spending cuts do not help balance the budget.
3) Clinton did not criticise Dole and the Republicans for trying to "cut" Medicaid.

Clinton got balanced budgets passed. Once he left, your guys went on a bender. It's that simple.

Economic risks is a different subject than free trade and growth. Those things you are talking about may hurt certain people and cause economic pain to certain groups but not the country as a whole. I am for growth. There is no questions that the entire legal system is a drain on growth. As much as you would like to believe they do, lawyers do not ad to the GNP. The more business litigation there is, the worse it is for business.

I worked on a case years ago that involved a dispute over the valuation of a business that was sold. They couldn't do a proper audit before the deal, for various reasons, so they agreed to litigate after the fact. In a country with an inferior legal system, you can't do this. In this way, the legal system helps growth.

Workers Compensation was the number one issue for the California Chamber of Commerce when they helped Arnold get elected. I know this because half of the board of the Chamber also sits on my board. I was also there when the Chamber listed their complaints to then candidate Arnold. On most of the bills that go through the legislature the Chamber of Commerce is on one side and the Unions are on the other. The same is true of the trial lawyers. So somebody is taking the side against growth, a healthy business environment and free trade. They both can't be on the side of free trade, growth and a healthy business environment because they are almost always on different sides. Call me crazy, but when it comes to free trade, growth and a healthy business envornment I think such issues are better in the hands of the Chamber than the Unions and Trial lawyers. Do you disagree with that?

My comment above about [i]Brunswick[i] goes to the difference between helping markets function well, and helping businesses do well. There's a difference. Your guys speak the language of markets, but they're all too willing to carry water for businesses even when it has nothing to do with promoting competition on growth or the better functioning of the markets.

Unions play an important role. Their existence is not anti-competitive, any more than permitting concentrations of capital is. If you want to complain that unions are a drag on the markets, but have nothing to say about (e.g.) oligopolies, you're either not taking a balanced look at the situation, or you're more interested in helping people with money than helping people make money.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why does this Koran-pissing story have such legs?

Am I the only one having problems generating a whit of sympathy for a group of people who (or at least a very high percentage of whom) come from a culture that celebrates burning the american flag?

I don't care that much, because religion is crap, but I think it's the desecrating the Koran as a way of trying to get information out of imprisoned people. Plus our country is pretty religious as a whole, and people may be projecting what they would feel about someone pissing on the Holy Bible or something. Again, like I give a shit, but I think it's a combo of using desecration as a questioning technique and the wacko religious right double standard.

Why was a Marine peeing around a prisoner, anyway? I'm just curious. Water sports?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Since the "you win" was clearly bs just intended to make me shut up (nice, Ty), I don't feel bad continuing. Thanks for being so unbelievably and insultingly transparent, Ty!!!! You are a sweetie. Kiss kiss.

In general, no, you can't get away with underfunding. But what are they going to do? Shut down the entire company? I am sure we are talking about United, here. Christ.

BTW, if you didn't notice, I'm kind of annoyed by your patronizing crap. It could be the wine talking.

(a) You win, in that you clearly know more about this stuff than I do.

(b) Surely we can think of something to do about underfunding.

(c) If I was patronizing last night, it was surely the wine.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Cox heading the SEC -- good or bad?

Spanky, lemme guess your feelings (why do we need an SEC at all? The free market will ensure full disclosure and prevent securities fraud!) ;-)

My own feelings -- the SEC is in near-stalemate lately, which is not a good thing. Cox is too radical a choice, however. The PSLRA, while in many ways necessary and a good thing, really pushed a trend away from accountability (and liability) that contributed to the rash of scandals that we saw in the ensuing years. Cox will vastly accelerate that trend -- it's like a car that's taken a turn to the correct course, but overshot it a little.... and he's going to lock the steering wheel and slam on the gas.

OTOH, I haven't practiced in the securities area for awhile (too goddamn boring, sitting in roomsful of lawyers who couldn't distinguish between a relevant fact and an important fact to save their lives). I'd be interested to hear from the people more currently involved in the area.

Time will tell with Cox. The convential wisdom is that Donaldson swung the pendulum to far after the scandals and a loosening of regulation would be a good thing for companies.

I'm no litigator, but I do currently practice in the area. I think the balance that needs to be struck is difficult. On the one hand, I'm am fully behind full and accurate disclosure, but on the other hand, I think the regulations need to differentiate between large cap and small cap companies, mainly because the costs of a small cap complying with the same regs as, say IBM, often times become prohibitive and are harmfull to investors.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(a) You win, in that you clearly know more about this stuff than I do.

(b) Surely we can think of something to do about underfunding.

(c) If I was patronizing last night, it was surely the wine.

Not that many plans are underfunded. The ones that are, generally belong to businesses that are not doing so hot. All defined benefit plans are required to be insured with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Company (Corporation?), which guarantees benefits up to a point. People at the top of the covered comp scale will lose some (e.g., pilots) if the plan isn't fully funded and the PBGC takes over because, e.g., the company goes bankrupt. Basically the PBGC takes over pension plans -- including the assets they have -- and pays out the benefits when a company goes bye-bye. Since there's a huge reversion excise tax (like 50%?), in theory a business could go bust and yet have a fully funded pension plan, in which case everyone would get the benefits they are do.

The PBGC was overfunded a couple years ago by a lot. There was discussion of reducing premiums, but I'm not sure if it happened. It is now potentially underfunded (not sure the extent to which the feds are required to bail it out).

It's not a bad system. Aside from all the political fluff, the issues have to do with valuing liabilities -- what assumptions are used in the actuarial models. If the rate to which valuations are pegged is volatile, a plan can look hugely underfunded one day and hugely overfunded the next.

There's one big company plan (or set of plans, more likely) that is quite, quite underfunded (I can't remember the name, but it's in the top 10 by accrued liabilities). GM's plans, while not fully funded, were quite well funded and they have by FAR the biggest set of plans as measured by liabilities and, I think, by number of participants. Obviously, the market being crap lately would make them less well funded than they might have been at the end of 2004 (the data in the report I looked at a while ago).

I don't think the situation is nearly as dire as some people are apparently making it out to be, if you are suddenly all freaked out about it. Of course, maybe you have a relative who is a pilot at United or something. Anyway, hence my thinking that you drank the Koolaid.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"My people would tell me if I needed a better umbrella, and they haven't said anything."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Only if you think of tariffs as labor protections, and I don't. You mentioned Rep. What's Her Name from CoCo County. She would vote for the right kind of free trade pact. Rep. DeLay doesn't want her getting business support. Connect the dots.

The entire business community is behind the deal. If it was just a Republican fix that wouldn't be the case. The deal will help American business, which will lead to growth. That is all we need to know.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Burger, would you explain Brunswick's holding about the difference between hurting competition and hurting competitors?.

I have no idea what this means.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop And the people there voted for him. What you are suggesting has no legitimacy at all

Legitamacy? What does that mean? He is ruining that country and condemning future generations of the country to poverty. Everyone knows it. The US should do whatever they can do to undermine him. Venezuela is never going to get to the $4,000 PCI (or grow a strong middle class) if this bozo continues in office. If you really want a lasting stable democracy in Venezuela, the sooner this guy goes the better. Whatever the means.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Clinton got balanced budgets passed. Once he left, your guys went on a bender. It's that simple.

You need to retake a civics course. Congress is responsible for the budget. Clintons proposed budgets were dead on arrival. The Republicans put together budgets and all Clinton did was force them to lessen their spending cuts. That was what the government shut down was all about. If Clinton did not get his way the budget would have been balanced sooner and the surpluses would have been larger. But if you are going to give the President responsibility for the budget the last budget Clinton signed (2001) was in deficit. Of course the current deficit is all about wasteful spending and nothing to do with the fact that we had a recession and we are in a war.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I worked on a case years ago that involved a dispute over the valuation of a business that was sold. They couldn't do a proper audit before the deal, for various reasons, so they agreed to litigate after the fact. In a country with an inferior legal system, you can't do this. In this way, the legal system helps growth.

Well you get a gold star. But one case is surely not a representative sample to demonstrate litigations effect on business.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop My comment above about [i]Brunswick[i] goes to the difference between helping markets function well, and helping businesses do well. There's a difference. Your guys speak the language of markets, but they're all too willing to carry water for businesses even when it has nothing to do with promoting competition on growth or the better functioning of the markets

You are putting the cart before the horse. The whole point is growth. That is why you have free markets because they are better at growing the economy. If you have well functioning markets, but business suffer that ruins the goal. If it takes screwed up markets to get growth, then you have screwed up markets. We carry water for the businesses, because they are what create the growth. Is there something else besides growing businesses that leads to growth. You make it sound like if we have fair markets and protect peoples pension that that in intself will bring growth regardless of the business climate. There are reasons to restrict businesses - environment etc. But balancing Business Interests with Union interests does not optimize growth. You may help the unions because it is fair, but thriving businesses equal growth.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Unions play an important role. Their existence is not anti-competitive, any more than permitting concentrations of capital is. If you want to complain that unions are a drag on the markets, but have nothing to say about (e.g.) oligopolies, you're either not taking a balanced look at the situation, or you're more interested in helping people with money than helping people make money.

I don't mind Unions. I just mind it when they influence laws. Every law they seem to support today is antigrowth. If they would just try and stop protecting their jobs through laws (which by definition are anti-competitive) I wouldn't mind them at all. The bottom line is Unions don't create growth, Pensions don't create growth, SEC regulations don't create growth, businesses create growth. It is all about the business climate. You asked me why I am a Republican when economic growth is my objective and I have demonstrated that the Republicans support pro-growth policies. If they didn't, the Chamber wouldn't support them.

PS. T-Rex, I know we are having fun here but we might be driving everyone crazy. I will let you have the last word. And that bender comment was a great line. I actually laughed out loud at my computer.

[Gattigap]

You may wish to tell Arnold that his staff has been handing out the conference call number to too many contributors, or that their quality control is lagging -- it appears that the People's Governor has even extended access to POS reporters, which I'm not sure is what he had in mind.

• SACRAMENTO — When wealthy contributors write checks to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, they often get a few canapes and a drink — and a secret telephone number that grants them access to his closest advisors and even the governor himself.
  
  Twice a month, donors can become insiders' insiders — invited to participate in conference calls featuring information about Schwarzenegger campaign strategy that his political enemies would love to have. In turn, donors who dial in can give the governor advice.
  
  In the latest such call, a few days ago, Schwarzenegger's media expert, Don Sipple, outlined a strategy "based on a lot of polling" to create a "phenomenon of anger" among voters toward public employee unions. Firefighters, police officers, teachers and other state-paid workers have become the governor's harshest critics this year.
  
  "The process is like peeling an onion," Sipple said, describing a multi-step plan for persuading voters that public-worker unions are "motivated by economic self-interest" instead of "doing the best job for the state."
  
  The Thursday discussion, involving multiple contributors and three top Schwarzenegger strategists, offered a rare glimpse of the governor's "donor maintenance" effort: insider information, solicitous compliments, invitations to exclusive parties. It was also a window on the governor's attack strategy ahead of an expected Nov. 8 special election.
  
  The governor has dubbed 2005 the "year for reform," and he needs millions of dollars for support, mainly for TV ads. The Times was given access to Thursday's half-hour call through a participant.
  
  "It's a good way to keep in touch with you, our most important supporters, about the latest developments in the campaign," Schwarzenegger's chief fundraiser, Marty Wilson, told the contributors.

A "phenomenon of anger" towards nurses, teachers, firefighters, cops. I can tell, 2005 will be a fun year.

[Gattigap]

Sure, there are probably a handful of Texans (hi, RT!) who might object to the Govenor signing bills restricting abortion and outlawing gay marriage in a church-run school, but doubtless they're just those "separation of church and state" weenies who don't understand the power of metaphor or of campaign contributions.

Besides, it's efficient: this way, after signing the bills, the Governor can wash in the Blood of the Lamb without even having to get in his car.